FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS

FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS

The court struck out specific sub‑paragraphs of the defences as scandalous, irrelevant and unnecessary because they imputed conduct or character without particulars or causal connection to the pleaded defences and would unduly lengthen and prejudice trial; the court ordered specified further and better particulars where necessary to fairly define issues and save costs; costs orders and time limits for filing an engrossed amended defence and furnishing particulars were imposed.

Citation
FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 1801/2010): Full Pacific Development Limited; Plaintiff (hca 167/2011): Tin Wan Tung; 1st Defendant: Wong See Yin; 2nd Defendant: Matrix Wealth Limited; 3rd Defendant: Fully Fortune (Asia) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 April 2013
Case Number
HCA1801/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Misrepresentation / Property / Contract / Interlocutory Applications Determined (striking Out and Particulars)
Outcome
Applications partly allowed. Numerous sub‑paragraphs of the defences struck out as scandalous or irrelevant; specified particulars ordered; costs orders made and timetable imposed for engrossment and provision of particulars.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Further and Better Particulars, Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Trusts and Mortgages, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Fraud Property Law Equity Striking Out Further and Better Particulars Misrepresentation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Full Pacific Development Limited

Plaintiff (hca 1801/2010)

Tin Wan Tung

Plaintiff (hca 167/2011)

Wong See Yin

1st Defendant

Matrix Wealth Limited

2nd Defendant

Fully Fortune (Asia) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Misrepresentation / Property / Contract / Interlocutory Applications Determined (striking Out and Particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified parts of the defences are scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of process and should be struck out under Order 18 Rule 19
  2. 2 Whether further and better particulars should be ordered under Order 18 Rule 12(3B) to dispose fairly or save costs
  3. 3 Allocation of costs arising from the interlocutory applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out specific sub‑paragraphs of the defences as scandalous, irrelevant and unnecessary because they imputed conduct or character without particulars or causal connection to the pleaded defences and would unduly lengthen and prejudice trial; the court ordered specified further and better particulars where necessary to fairly define issues and save costs; costs orders and time limits for filing an engrossed amended defence and furnishing particulars were imposed.

Court Disposition

Applications partly allowed. Numerous sub‑paragraphs of the defences struck out as scandalous or irrelevant; specified particulars ordered; costs orders made and timetable imposed for engrossment and provision of particulars.

Orders

  • Strike out paragraph 5(f)(iii) of the defences
  • Strike out sub‑paragraph 6(g)(iii) of the defences (both actions)